Toolkit Project Update 12 Feb 03

1
Report from the Ad HocInstitute Review Committee
(IRC)
Ronald Arkin Kent Barefield Brent Carter Russell Gentry Mark Guzdial Joseph Hoey Jeff Jagoda Jim McClellan John McIntyre Farrokh Mistree Gary Parker Steve Usselman Paul Wine Brian Woodall Computing Chemistry MSE Architecture Computing (IUCC Liaison) Office of Assessment Aerospace (GCC Liaison) ECE Management Mechanical Engineering ISYE HTS Chemistry International Affairs
J. Jospeh Hoey, Ed.D. Director of
Assessment Office of Assessment Georgia
Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia
30332-0325 404.894.0510 404.385.1421
fax joseph.hoey_at_oars.gatech.edu
T. Russell Gentry, Ph.D., PE Associate
Professor College of Architecture Architecture
Program / AWPL Atlanta, Georgia
30332-0155 404.894.3845 404.894.0572
fax russell.gentry_at_arch.gatech.edu
Presented 8 April 2003 Georgia Tech Executive
Board Meeting Russell Gentry, Architecture Joseph
Hoey, Office of Assessment
2
Outline

• Background
• Institute Review Committee
• IRC Recommendations for the Future
• Hughes/Green Proposal
• IRC and CIAPRA
• IRC Operations going forward

3
Background GT Experience with Program Review

• SACS visit problems in 1994 and 1998 certain
  programs on campus are not being assessed
• IUCC and GCC not reviewing curriculum per
  statutory requirements in 1980s and 1990s no
  process in place to enable this review
• Board of Regents Mandate in 2000 periodic
  program review required
• Dean Rosser report recommends formation of IRC
• IRC formed as an ad-hoc appointed committee with
  two year life

4
IRC Operations Fall 2001 to Spring 2003

• 8 members on the IRC with the Director of
  Assessment acting as Chair
• ROLE
• Develop infrastructure schedules, templates,
  procedures
• Police/enable the process
• Liaison with colleges and schools
• Assess the process How is it working and how can
  it be improved?
• April 15 summary presentations

5
IRC Requests to EB

• Late Fall 2002 If IRC operations are to go
  forward, then the EB will need to appoint
  additional members to the IRC (operational)
• Spring 2003 Disband IRC its mission is
  complete (strategic)
• IRC members feel that the committee need not
  continue if its role is solely to administer the
  program review process this is an
  administrative function that is well-handled by
  the Office of Assessment.

6
Hughes/Green Proposal

• Expand IRC role to assist with the curriculum
  review
• Charge IRC with condensing and commenting on
  review materials and providing a summary for the
  Provosts use
• IRC to become a faculty committee or standing
  sub-committee of the curriculum committee(s)
• IRC Reaction
• Generally positive. Role of curriculum review
  piece and IUCC/GCC interaction needs
  clarification.

7
Future Operations IRC and CIAPRA

• CIAPRA Council on Institutional Accreditation,
  Program Review, and Assessment
• High level committee administrators, organized
  to address SACS and other Institute-wide issues
• Policy-level advice to the Provost
• Ability to look across the program review process
  to identify problems and opportunities
• IRC Institute Review Committee
• Support policy-making functions of CIAPRA within
  the context of periodic program review and the
  scope of the IRC charter.

8
IRC Role going Forward

1. Infrastructure provide templates, instructions,
   flowcharts, and schedules for program review
2. Liaison act as a bridge between the program
   review process and the individual units
   undergoing review
3. Policing Set dates for key milestones in the
   program review process and ensure that elements
   of the program review are routed to and received
   from appropriate members of the GT community
   (Deans, IUCC, GCC, Office of Assessment, CIAPRA,
   Provost)
4. Curriculum Review Provide or enable curriculum
   review of undergraduate and graduate components
   as appropriate.
5. Synthesis Provide a final synthesis of each
   program review that reflects key findings and
   recommendations from the elements of program
   review (1) self-study, (2) external visitors
   report, (3) Deans letter, and (4) curriculum
   review report.

9
IRC Makeup

• Minimum of 8 members, one from each college with
  one additional from Engineering
• Ability to add additional members during years
  when a large number of programs are undergoing
  review (minimum 2 members for each program
  review)
• Liaison members from IUCC, GCC, and CIAPRA
• Membership for 3 years with 1/3 rotating off each
  year
• Director of Assessment to chair committee with a
  faculty co-chair

10
EB Decision-Making

• Elected or appointed committee?
• Position within faculty governance structure?
• Relationship with IUCC and GCC?
• Two roles of collaboration at expressed
  preference of IUCC and IGC (1) IRC forwards
  curriculum-related information to curriculum
  committees who review the curriculum component
  and report back to the IRC or (2) the curriculum
  committees appoint liaison members who sit on the
  IRC and complete the curriculum review component
  in house.

11
(No Transcript)